ML20127H505
| ML20127H505 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1969 |
| From: | Mondale W SENATE |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211180530 | |
| Download: ML20127H505 (5) | |
Text
,
~'
Jy i.:.] '
2082 DA'Q *Mor. 21, i
(j-1969 1
[h -
l l
7(nilcD MI4Ics Mcnole
-\\
- RE
Mr. Russell Hatling l
144 Melbourne Ave., S. E.
- ~
Minneapolis pl
.j
,Minn 55414 I,
'...i
,i Respectfully referred to i*'-
Congressional Liaison 0*
Atomic Energy CommissLon l
Washington, D. C.
rl' }.L).
e t
I.
.[.! Qp
. a..,,
. f,7 ;
,i., < i, p.
pray)jyS,..,
For your consideration of the attached i-
- letter, and f6'r' a rep' ort.
N i - @!..i R,Ng
.; (
Ft;;O j.
b.
4 To'be forwarded directly to the
, P.'. W*,7 i..:. h.. a' 1, -
i
',:/ ?}fic.;$y * \\
1 1
constituent, with a copy to me t
I N? j. 7.' t i
for my information and records.
.l q.,Q. '.y.1.
n
,,sie t
l ATo me, in <iuplicate to accompanyc
[ /.yj;3.};;f,},
l-return of enelosure.
d;.,7;.
c'.
t
! *. c.ls 9,.'.i:, '
g As requested below.
.!A.,.3y.a ?.,P.
c
{
t' +< 7:
.i
, !$...;,h....'[.
Additional comnients:
'x
.i 1
,.. c.....;(,
.. y
,n c
/-
, s ;
S 2,.Qy W
r.y.. 2.,., t.,
1
, s, 9. :..,.
,'*f p, d.4( %
a f.' $'.lC b'.y,:'
w L'.
t.
4 y.f. s
,o.
l Please refer response to attention of.
. b. .. ~ c,',. f. * '
{
. % 4, 1
.t
',2
~
Bob Mannion
, of my staff,
(.:s., ;.,,;.
I on the outside of the envelope only.
' " A.'. '; I
~
~
y.'.*...:,-
~
Thank you.
t co.*
m..o.;~.v...
EMM ;,.. s.(piF.u.
Dat6, 'Off.' D". -
WALTER F. MONDALE diNI. 6)
U.S. SENATE i
Time \\' DM/d,
' n.!"
082
.i.
L
_/
'9211180530-600321' PDR ADOCK 05000263~
l w
cx. gm
~
--g t
\\
i 144 Molbourne avonuo Southosst
' inneupolis, Minnesotr. 5S414 J
%;s
- =
g
~
4
.a =.to r '..bi te r :. o dale n
-i
.:,en..tc Office Building auhin ; ton, D.C.
e
)
i "ec : donator :.endale:
y,t as a citi::en of Minnesota. I have objected to the proposed nuclear oa6r e
- 1.c.t in..onticello.
I believo no ono has the right to subject any cit-1::en to the dangerc of rdic.tien... no one has the richt to mohe a _ '
-v luo jud@cnt that tho 'risy to life is offset by the benefits of such a cys te:a.
. no one has the right to foul the rivoro "and lakes-which belong to the people of the stato.-
Q ll I ca onciccing a report I hr.ve prepared and circulated at the DFL City Convention in J nneapolic. I have neked others to join me in protecting i
the licensinI of this pinnt to dump radioactive waste into the Mississ-ippi.
I fin the idea almost unbelievable.
I imploro you to use vvery means at your disposal to, help block this licensing.
Sincerely.
w' k Russell'Hatling N
4 y
Oi
.~
s 6
t a
9 4'
4
, g.
t 1.
A 0
g-w*
I
- .s (3;._
(.
.. s,e MONTICELLO: A nuclecr cn:rgy gamble The stakes mutation, cancer, death Citizens are concerned about the idea of radioactive wastes being dumped into the Mississippi at Monticello. We should be.
It's our drinking water. And in spite of the assurances of safety from the Atomic Energy -
Commission and Northern States Power Company -- the safety and performance j
records of nuclear energy plants have been dismal.
2 Of the original 12 nuclear power plants that have been put into operation, 8 have f ailed -- including the one at Elk River where radioactive leaks 4
forced shutdown -- and the Northern States Power " Pathfinder" plant in Sioux Falls which exceedod its yearly concentration limit despite being operated below full power. Three plants have been abandoned (one at an estimated $7 million decontamination cost, paid by the taxpayer, of I
course).1
(,:
In all cases where these plants failed, citizens had been assured, as "
now, of complete safety.
Q.
If there were a real danger to health from radioactive waste, would the Atomic Energy Commission approve of such a plant?
s A.
It appears that the AEC not only would but in fact has appr,oved of such plants. The Hanford, Washington Atomic Energy facility on the Columbia River is an example.
A 1965 study showed that Oregon counties bordering the Columbia River downstream from the Hanford facility had a 53 percent higher cancer rate than the rest of the state. The JOUPNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH reported: "This physiographic pattern of malignancy provides strong circumstantial evidence that not just leukemia but all types of cancer are influenced by bodily ingested radioisotopes in quantities heretofore j
thought safe."2 We might add, ' declared safe' by the AEC.
Q.
But whv would the AEC approve a nuclear power installation where even the slightest question of safety exists?
A.
It is important to keep in mind that the AEC was established to promote I
the use of nuclear energy. Limiting such use, even for safety reasons, k
is cle'arly a conflict of interest for the AEC.
Q.
What is a ' safe level' of radioactivity in the environment?
A.
There is no ' safe level' of radioactivity. Radiation as minimal as X-ray exposure of an unborn child is associated with leukemia in later life.2 Standards. depend on how many deaths and mutations we are willing to accept.
For example, the Federal Radiation Council has set its standards at
.5 rem yearly exposure.
"If we assume the population of the Twin Cities metropolitan area to be two million, then a continuing yearly exposure of.5 rem -- the FRC standard doso -- would be expected to cause from 10 to 100 cases of leukemia per year and about an equal number of other l
1
i.
.. ~. -
( s)
O.
.~
(2)
V.
types of neoplasms (cancer)... Whether a loss of this magnitude is acceptable to society can only be determined by: considering the benefits l
to be gained from a particular use of atomic energy."3 A question ora might ask is 'whose benefits and whose deaths?'
I How much radioactive waste would the proposed Monticello Plant discharge 8
Q.
into the Mimpissippi?
Northern States Power estimates a total waste, including fuel leaks, of A.
91.4 Curies yearly.4 1
General Electric, who has a reputation for seriously underestimating i
l radioactive discharge, guesses 30,000 Curies the first year. Note the discrepancy: 29,998.6 Curies. The real figure is anybody's guess.
("A Curie is equivalent to the activity of one gram of radium. We can all recall the excitement and intensive searches instituted when capsules containing a few milligrams of radium were lost or misplaced. Yet the quantity of radioactivity proposed for release from a single nuclear power plant each year, even under the most optimistic assumptions as to its operation, is several tLmes the activity of the entire world supply of radium.")4 r
Q.
What about the present argument between Northern States Power and the Pollution Control Agency as to allowable limits of radioactive contami-nation?
A.
This is a sham battle diverting attention from the real point that pst amount of radioactive waste is safe and under pgt conditions should dumping it in our drinking water be tolerated.
Eugene P. Dolum, in his widely used textbook, FUNDAMENTALS OF ECOLOGY, says: "Should,a system receive a higher level of radiation than that under which it evolved, nature will not take it ' lying down,' so to
)
speak; adaptations and adjustments will occur along with elimination of sensitive strains or species."
Put another ways radinactive waste dumped into the Mississippi will result in mutations or freaks in plants, animals, fish and people.
Cancer and the death rate due to cancer will increase. No limits have been set on the increase of illness and death that is " acceptable."
That will apparently depend on how loud people protest as they learn what is happending.
Q.
Is is necessary to discharge radioactive waste into the Mississippi River?
c.
A.
NO.
"The quantity of radioactive wastes which is discharyed depends on' the extent of the waste treatment system. Radioisotopes in the wastes can vary from none to several million Curies per year. There need be no radioactive. discharge since those that are released are the result of deliberate decisions. The only gain offsetting these releases is a slightly lower, and as yet' unspecified electrical cost to the consumer."4 4
1
- j q g
g.
Q.
What can you-do?
A.
Make your voice heard. Don't leave it to the other guy.. Protest now against dumping radioactive waste in any amount into the Mississippi River or any other body of water in Minnesota.
Send your protest to:
. Governcr Harold LeVander, State Capitol Bldg., St. Paul, Minnesota
. Mayor Arthur Naftalin, Minneapolis Court House, Minneapolis', Minnesota
. Your Own State Legislator, State Capitol Bldg., St. Paul, Minnesota
)
. Mr. John Badalich, Chairman - Pollution Control Agency, Department of Health Building, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,. Minnesota 1
ATTEND POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY MEETING (Permit for NSP v'ill be granted or denied at this meeting)
Tuesday, March 11 I
Veterans Service Building 9:00 AM Capitol Approach - St. Paul Source Material:
(,
(1) United States Atomic Energy Commission, " Operating History of U. S. Nuclear Reactors" (2)
I Robert Cunningham Fadeley, " Oregon Malignancy Pattern Physiograph-ically Related to Hanford Washington Radioisotope Storage,"
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, May-June, '65 (3)
R. E. Pogue and D. E. Abrahamson, " Benefits, Risks, and Regulations,"
i JOURNAL OF MINNESOTA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, Vol. 35, No.1,_1968.
1 (4) Abrahamson and Pogue, " Discharge of Radioactive and Thermal Wastes," JOURNAL OF MINNESOTA ACADEMY -OF SCIENCE, Vol. 35, No. - 1, 1968.
i N.
1 t
Prepared and Distributed-by Russell Hatling, 2nd Ward
-